Switzerland hosts peace summit: heated debate in the neutrality arena

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

The World Economic Forum was all about international politics. And Switzerland’s role as mediator was more present than usual. The reason for this is the proposed peace conference for Ukraine, which Switzerland wants to organize this year.

Whether the Swiss proposal is a good idea at all and what it means for our concept of neutrality was the topic of the SRF “Arena” on Friday.

Should Russia have a seat at the table?

FDP national councilor Maja Riniker (45) supported the peace conference, but the hugs between Cassis and Selenski must now be followed by action. Former President of the National Council Martin Candinas (43) agreed: “Who, if not Switzerland, can organize a peace summit?”

SVP Council Member Walter Gartmann (55) was more critical of the initiative. “A peace summit without Russian representation is dangerous,” he says. According to St. Gall, both games had to be brought to the table because there would always be two people fighting. State councilor Priska Seiler Graf (55) contradicted this. Talks with Putin are currently an illusion. The Zurich resident also emphasized that the conference would not pose a problem with the local concept of neutrality. Neutrality has always been interpreted flexibly. “Rarely is a war so clear,” said Seiler Graf. But there is a clear attacker and a victim in the war in Ukraine. “We have to be on the side of the victim.”

The Swiss concept of neutrality

Meanwhile, Candinas emphasized that Switzerland’s position is possible because it is on the side of international law. “Neutrality does not mean indifference and passivity,” says Candinas. It is important that the Federal Council holds discussions with countries that have not taken a clear position in this war, such as China, Brazil or India. This could increase diplomatic pressure. Seiler Graf, Candinas and Riniker agreed that Switzerland is right to show solidarity with Ukraine and should continue to support the country despite its neutrality.

Not all parties shared the same opinion. «For me there is only one thing; “perpetual armed neutrality,” said the SVP man. (lazy)

Source:Blick